llamatron Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The pool management are right to ban ebooks along with all other electronic devices such as cameras, phones and tablets. These are banned, rightly, to prevent people taking photographs of children. Why should a member of staff have to take their eyes off the children they are teaching / lifeguarding to look at what an adult is doing and then have to walk over to check that it is 'just' an e-book and not a tablet that can take photographs as well as let someone read a story. For those that say this is a crazy rule here are some reasons why photography is banned in public swimming pools: a) a child in that swimming session / lesson could be being cared for by foster parents - parent takes photograph of their child swimming their first width and in the background are other children. parent places said photo on facebook / twitter and it is seen by someone that knows the child being cared for - tells the parents which could place the child at risk (yes, the risk is low but it could happen) b) same as above but the child this time is part of a witness protection programme because of something they, or their parents etc, have witnessed c) Paedophiles can take the most innocent photograph and use it in ways we wouldn't want to think about ---------- Post added 20-07-2013 at 20:53 ---------- This will be carefully controlled, complying with data protection rules and only very few staff will have access to the actual recorded material, which is destroyed after a set number of days. It won't end up on someone's facebook page etc All nonsensical as all could happen outside the swimming pool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjyp Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 [/b] Do you have children ? I've been to many swim galas - if a child is good at swimming this is where they should be. I will try again - have you got children ? I'm still not sure whether go4it has kids, and therefore talking from experience, or doesn't have any children but likes to attend swim galas watching children. It may be me but that doesn't read well. Unless that was an indirect way of answering the question which I didn't get again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 No it's not. It was only in the last couple of years a man was arrested at Hillsborough baths for taking pictures of children in the changing rooms while they were getting changed. I think he had some sort of device he could put under the cubicles. So it does happen and it has happened locally. To be honest I'm not keen on the idea of anybody taking a picture of me in my swimmers and posting it online. Cameras are banned for good reason and if they can't tell the difference between the two then obviously e-books have to go too. Buy a paper for 50p or get a book out of the library for free. Is there a viewing area to the changing rooms? No there isn't, do you have a problem with people seeing your child in a swimming costume? No paedo is looking at pictures of random children in swimming costumes on the internet. They are after harder stuff than that! ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 09:33 ---------- He was using a camera. And the fact that they are banned full stop means that there is no grey area the rules are clear. Of course the assumption is not that every person in the pool is a paedophile. But the fact remains that there is a risk. If you put 'Peeping Tom Swimming Pool' into google cases come up in Wrexham, Leeds, Buckinghamshire, Manchester, Lichfield, Kent, Somerset and Derbyshire. And that is just the first page of results! Unfortunately it's a fact of life that where there are large groups of undressed people you're going to attract some unsavory elements and this rule minimizes any risk. As far as Google Glass goes, there are very big concerns about the effect this will have on people's privacy and I imagine that they won't be allowed either. People will just have to carry round a pair of normal specs if the need them. ---------- Post added 20-07-2013 at 23:06 ---------- I think it's difficult for a man to understand anyway. I doubt they will have had experiences anything like the ones women have in their 20s and 30s, the pervert sticking his hand up your skirt on the bus, someone rubbing up against you on the tube. It's more common than I think most men would realize. well: a) they aren't undressed-they are wearing swimming costumes and spend most of the time in the water b) a paedo can sit there in real time viewing the children in the flesh so it prevents nothing at all c) photography on a beach is not illegal so there are millions of photos of kids in swimming costumes online anyway ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 09:39 ---------- Well, to save this thread from degenerating, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. There is so many mights, what ifs, coulds and maybes the whole scenario just screams of heavy handedness in the face of tiny risk. Sure, ban cameras in changing rooms, as that's a common sense thing. I wouldn't like to think of someone taking photographs of my wife and child getting changed. But in the viewing area? Too much. I have never felt the need to take pictures of my kids swimming, but some people may well want to. I'd rather a system that lets a parent take pictures of their own kids as and when they want to than a system that assumes I am either a pervert or an idiot as I find both an insult. I agree, banning photography prevents absolutely nothing but it does rob parents of them capturing memories of their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjyp Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 He specifically said "stay at home". Like I said, there is no reason for anyone to care. Private property, or a publicly funded swimming bath? And even if it is private that doesn't mean rules can't be questioned. ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:29 ---------- What is wrong with that parent reading a book whilst the child is taught to swim by a professional? ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:31 ---------- This isn't the ultimate answer to any criticism you know. If he says no that doesn't somehow invalidate his opinion or strengthen yours. - He specifically said "stay at home". Yes, willman said quote If people want to ignore their children's activities stay at home. I read that as dropping your little ones off at the venue and go back home (and do things you want to do.) - Like I said, there is no reason for anyone to care. Not sure what this means. Do you mean no one should care about rules? Or the rules aren't valid/relevant to care? And in turn can be ignored? Sorry I don't understand that part. - Private property, or a publicly funded swimming bath? And even if it is private that doesn't mean rules can't be questioned. Question them by all means, give constructive feedback but at the end of the day if you can't influence change - rules are rules. I don't know for sure but I can only guess any rules about child health and safety are checked by others before released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daven Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 He specifically said "stay at home". Like I said, there is no reason for anyone to care. Private property, or a publicly funded swimming bath? And even if it is private that doesn't mean rules can't be questioned. ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:29 ---------- What is wrong with that parent reading a book whilst the child is taught to swim by a professional? ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 07:31 ---------- This isn't the ultimate answer to any criticism you know. If he says no that doesn't somehow invalidate his opinion or strengthen yours. Nothing - I was replying to his comment that children shouldn't be praised for their achievements. ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 09:50 ---------- I'm still not sure whether go4it has kids, and therefore talking from experience, or doesn't have any children but likes to attend swim galas watching children. It may be me but that doesn't read well. Unless that was an indirect way of answering the question which I didn't get again? The reason why I asked if he had any children of his own was due to a concern that he doesn't believe that any child should be praised for their achievements and should, instead, be focused on the next achievement. I asked because i was curious about how this had affected his relationship with his children - if he had any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjyp Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 Nothing - I was replying to his comment that children shouldn't be praised for their achievements. ---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 09:50 ---------- The reason why I asked if he had any children of his own was due to a concern that he doesn't believe that any child should be praised for their achievements and should, instead, be focused on the next achievement. I asked because i was curious about how this had affected his relationship with his children - if he had any. By the way when I say the 'speaking from experience' part I didn't imply his/her opinion wasn't any less relevant just trying to understand their point of view if that makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 There's an after school swimming group at my local pool. The parents drop them off and go off and come back at the lesson end. Big deal if the OP stays or not, and watches or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 They don't save a single child from abuse. Bit of a bold statement. The "They" in my statement is meant to be "rules against photography in public". What I mean is, since you can't abuse someone by taking a photograph, a rule that stops photography is not stopping abuse. And stopping abuse is where the focus should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 The pool management are right to ban ebooks along with all other electronic devices such as cameras, phones and tablets. These are banned, rightly, to prevent people taking photographs of children. Why should a member of staff have to take their eyes off the children they are teaching / lifeguarding to look at what an adult is doing and then have to walk over to check that it is 'just' an e-book and not a tablet that can take photographs as well as let someone read a story. For those that say this is a crazy rule here are some reasons why photography is banned in public swimming pools: a) a child in that swimming session / lesson could be being cared for by foster parents - parent takes photograph of their child swimming their first width and in the background are other children. parent places said photo on facebook / twitter and it is seen by someone that knows the child being cared for - tells the parents which could place the child at risk (yes, the risk is low but it could happen) b) same as above but the child this time is part of a witness protection programme because of something they, or their parents etc, have witnessed c) Paedophiles can take the most innocent photograph and use it in ways we wouldn't want to think about ---------- Post added 20-07-2013 at 20:53 ---------- This will be carefully controlled, complying with data protection rules and only very few staff will have access to the actual recorded material, which is destroyed after a set number of days. It won't end up on someone's facebook page etc Whats the difference between a swimming pool and a beach? Far too many paranoid media sheep about nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 There's an after school swimming group at my local pool. The parents drop them off and go off and come back at the lesson end. Big deal if the OP stays or not, and watches or not. I agree. Supporting, encouraging and taking an active interest in your child's interests does not have to stretch to giving it your 'undivided attention' during its swimming lessons. In fact, I find the notion slightly odd, especially as the child would more than likely be too busy concentrating on the instructor and, you know, staying afloat/retrieving bricks from the bottom of the pool, to be bothered about whether one of its parents is at all times gazing in its direction. Help, encourage, support, commiserate with, talk to children about whatever their interests are, but don't let other parents make you feel guilty because your eyes aren't permanently fixed in your offspring's direction during one of their activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.